According to the angel in the Bible, the future King of the Jews was to be named “Jesus”:
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Mat 1:21)
Apparently, the name “Jesus” is supposed to be the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshuah. Yeshuah translated into English is Joshua.
No one seems to know why the Greek name Jesus was kept when they translated the Bible, from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English, but Yeshuah is the Hebrew name his parents literally gave to him. The Greek form of the name just remained there for whatever reason.
I don’t understand why the Bible doesn’t call him Joshua — that was his real name.
Now the name Christ is a totally different story. No, Christ is NOT Jesus’ last name. According to tradition, a person’s name usually depended on where they were born (or raised?).
In Jesus’s case it’s not clear since in one gospel he was born in Bethlehem and in another it seems he was born in Nazareth, or at least that’s where people assumed he was born since he is known, even until today as “Jesus of Nazareth”. So what should he be called?
At any rate, the Greek word that Christ comes from: Christos, does not mean messiah, contrary to popular belief and teaching. But it means the “anointed one” — or something close to that.
The word in Hebrew for messiah is “mashiach”. For the Jews, from whom came the Messianic prophesies, the idea of “mashiach” is not a savior, but a great human leader like King David. Now when I say human, that means the Messiah will be a human being, not a god come in the flesh, born of a virgin.
The word in Hebrew for messiah is “mashiach”:
“The Jewish idea of mashiach is a great human leader like King David, not a savior” (httpss://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach)
Opinion: There were gods that took on the name of Christ — this was a Greek and Roman belief. Serapis Christ, for example, was a three-in-one god that was popular with the Greeks — hundreds of years before worshiped by the Egyptians.
However, “Christ” isn’t even a name, it’s a title. So, it wouldn’t be exactly right to call the him “Jesus the Christ”, but something more along the lines of “Joshua of Bethlehem”. But that doesn’t sound quite so god-like, does it?
It would have been more accurate according to biblical history to call him “Joshua, king of the Jews” or maybe even “Joshua, the Messiah”. But “Jesus Christ”? The name doesn’t even do him justice, considering what the New Testament says about him.
Now, on his cross was on the title “King of the Jews” which was probably the most accurate meaning of “mashiach” in those days. And the Messiah was, to the early believers, to be the prophesied king that was to come and deliver them from their enemies, which at that time were the Romans:
“That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear” (Lk 1:74)
“But we trusted that it had been he (the promised Messiah, king of Israel, of OT prophecy) which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.” (Lk 24:12)
Alas! but he wasn’t able to deliver his people from their enemies, was he? He was unable to fulfill the prophecies of the promised “Messiah”. The writer of Matthew says, “…for he shall save his people from their sins”, as if this were something being quoted from a “prophecy” in the Old Testament.
But in fact, the “Mashiach” (Messiah) actually, according to prophecy, was to be a flesh and blood king of Israel, complete with mother and earthly father, not an “incarnate God” or savior of sins.
Next: Jesus’ Childhood | Joseph: Father of Jesus